Another draft gone by, full of bluster and spin, and little action. Garnett is still here; the impact of the swirling trade talk will have on team chemistry is unknown. Watching the different boards frantically and emotionally post every single rumor, along with their wild speculative trade ideas was fun for about a day. In the end, are we really any better? Like the last few years with this club, it's wait and see, which means usually not much progress has been made.
The Wolves waited until the 41st pick to address their biggest need, an inside banger. Richard is physical inside presence to be sure, but is a true project. Mostly, the club's front court--with the exceptions of Smith, Madsen and now possibly Richard--is still a soft bunch. Your true skill players--KG, Howard and Blount, would rather face the basket from 15 feet than go hard to the hole. Say what you want about the point guard position, until that dynamic gets fixed the Wolves will never again be a contending team. They might make the playoffs, but they never will truly contend.
Brewer will help defend the perimeter, and in a zone defense can permanently occupy the spot that KG occasionally did at the top of the zone. Big deal. With all the hand checking fouls going on these days, and guys like Tony Parker and Steve Nash penetrating the lane, what really helps a defense is a solid interior shot blocker with tenacity and intensity. I heard a lot of Noah dissing, but a guy like him would have helped fortify the defensive front court, and provided potential for offensive rebounding, which neither KG or Blount seem to want to do on a regular basis. If you couldn't get Oden or Horford, Noah was what the Wolves really needed, even if he ended up being a quality role player, because there's no one presently on the roster who plays that role.
As for KG staying or going, until the management changes, I don't think it matters. Listening to McHale once again last night reminds of us just how bad of a executive he is. At least on paper, who helped themselves the most last night? Probably Seattle and Portland, two competitors in our division. The Blazers got lucky in the draft, but in the space of two years they took the challenge and rebuilt the team. The Sonics traded their superstar for a pick we wanted and now have two major building blocks--Durant and Green--to sell when they leave Seattle. As for us, there's a lot bluster and rumor, but in the end, we're watching our competition pass us by, while for what seems the one millionth time reading Sid's accounting of how the game has changed since he was involved with the Lakers back in the Ying dynasty.
If the majority of the buzz created is arguing over how top 10 protected our already dealt draft picks are in the next few years, something is drastically wrong.
Friday, June 29, 2007
Friday, June 22, 2007
Weathering the Storm
Sisters and brothers, I'm testifying to the sweetness of watching a star player execute in the clutch.
Can I get an amen?
Can we for one moment capture this moment and appreciate an athlete as she continues her brilliant emergence? It's easy for a player to be the leading scoring on a mediocre team with many inconsistent shooters, but you know you have something when that player can come down the court, put the game on her shoulders and hit the dagger. Along with Katie Smith, the Lynx now have had two star players who can finish a game. It's a trait not every superstar possesses--KG's inability to close being the prime example. I've said a lot about the Taylor organization's roster building acumen, but they usually get one player right. On the Wolves, it is/was(?) KG, on this team it's Augustus.
The loss to San Antonio was disappointing, but right now, the Silver Stars are a better team than Seattle. The Storm have issues, now being just ahead of the Lynx in the standings. As was pointed out in today's Star Tribune, the Lynx are learning how to win at home, an obvious prerequisite for success. While they continue to have their shooting and defensive struggles, they were able to produce 10 more shots than the Storm, and hit a higher percentage of free throws; those factors being crucial in last night's win.
With winning the last four out of five, where does this team go from here? They still have a long way to go. The recipe for success for this team will be how well it complements SA in a balanced team approach. Looking at some familiar themes in previous posts:
Sharing the ball:
Last night was a regression in sharing the ball with a low 12 assists. In the last five games the Lynx have averaged 17.20 assists per game, as opposed to their season average 14.79. Harding took a lot of quick shots in this game, especially in the first half. It seemed as if she wanted to make a statement to Sue Bird, the Seattle star, who was an efficient 10 of 15. I guess the statement was: "I'm still an inconsistent rookie". Here's where I fault Zierden. When Harding was jacking up those shots, he should have told her to grab some bench. She was 2 of 7 in the first quarter, and didn't sit down until mid-way in the second. That's the perfect spot to bring in an experienced, pass-first PG to settle things down. You want your promising rookie to be up for the challenge of playing a star opponent, but not at the cost of team play. This ain't street ball.
The way the Lynx will win THIS YEAR is by distributing the basketball, getting balanced scoring, and complementing what SA will do most nights. The fact that Harding was able to grab 7 rebounds demonstrates that you don't have to score to contribute, especially at PG.
Pecking order:
Last night Zierden referred to Nicole Ohlde as the second best player on the club. Really? At the risk of making Marie's blood boil, here are Nicole's current stats:
21st in the league in rebounding
22nd in scoring
48th in field goal percentage
30th in blocks
25th in points/rebounds/assists average
45th in efficiency
1st in Fouls
Are those the stats of a second best player on any club? Not for a upper echelon team.
Ohlde got herself in foul trouble last night, and again showed her inability to finish in the paint, as well as contributing six turnovers. I'll be fair; she's played better lately, which certainly has contributed to the team's success. She's improved in almost every statistical category her last five games. And, being the primary front court player on the team this year, it's welcome and needed progress. But you can't have that much gap between your first and second best players. It's putting too much pressure on Nicole to be in that role, especially when they can't compliment her with stronger front court players. I'm guessing what they really want is for Harding to be second in the order, but given her performance to date, it's probably a year away. Thus the continued contribution of Svet and others to provide some help or simply hope for the continued improvement in Nicole's play will be paramount.
Bench play:
Last night, Eshaya Murphy came off the bench to provide a spark, with 12 points. Bench scoring has been an issue; they need to find that 6th or 7th player to come in and be the microwave or defensive stoppers.
Intangibles:
Essentially, the Lynx have improved offensively, and while still struggling defensively, have begun to balance it out. The last five games they have improved their shooting percentage, free throw percentage and assists per game; they have averaged scoring two points more than the opposition per game, up from a deficit of 4.47 per game for the season. Overall, the team has dipped in it's team rebounding totals, so the front court issues continue. The strategy seems to be increase the number of shots, rebound as a team (three players had 7 last night), share the ball and find the balance, all the while putting the ball in SA's hands at crunch time.
The bottom line: As the Beatles once said: "It's getting better." Parity in the league has actually provided a ray of hope, playoff-wise; they are 3 games out of the last spot in the Western Conference. To even mention that a couple of weeks ago would have been heresy on my part. Unfortunately, the rotten start has them pushing a huge rock up the hill. But the progress will encourage me to plunk my dollars down to go to a game, or to watch the games when they're available, which I certainly would encourage everyone to do.
And, considering the continuing drama on the Wolves side of the court, this blip in productivity has been welcome indeed. You can only call Kevin McHale an idiot for so long.
Can I get an amen?
Can we for one moment capture this moment and appreciate an athlete as she continues her brilliant emergence? It's easy for a player to be the leading scoring on a mediocre team with many inconsistent shooters, but you know you have something when that player can come down the court, put the game on her shoulders and hit the dagger. Along with Katie Smith, the Lynx now have had two star players who can finish a game. It's a trait not every superstar possesses--KG's inability to close being the prime example. I've said a lot about the Taylor organization's roster building acumen, but they usually get one player right. On the Wolves, it is/was(?) KG, on this team it's Augustus.
The loss to San Antonio was disappointing, but right now, the Silver Stars are a better team than Seattle. The Storm have issues, now being just ahead of the Lynx in the standings. As was pointed out in today's Star Tribune, the Lynx are learning how to win at home, an obvious prerequisite for success. While they continue to have their shooting and defensive struggles, they were able to produce 10 more shots than the Storm, and hit a higher percentage of free throws; those factors being crucial in last night's win.
With winning the last four out of five, where does this team go from here? They still have a long way to go. The recipe for success for this team will be how well it complements SA in a balanced team approach. Looking at some familiar themes in previous posts:
Sharing the ball:
Last night was a regression in sharing the ball with a low 12 assists. In the last five games the Lynx have averaged 17.20 assists per game, as opposed to their season average 14.79. Harding took a lot of quick shots in this game, especially in the first half. It seemed as if she wanted to make a statement to Sue Bird, the Seattle star, who was an efficient 10 of 15. I guess the statement was: "I'm still an inconsistent rookie". Here's where I fault Zierden. When Harding was jacking up those shots, he should have told her to grab some bench. She was 2 of 7 in the first quarter, and didn't sit down until mid-way in the second. That's the perfect spot to bring in an experienced, pass-first PG to settle things down. You want your promising rookie to be up for the challenge of playing a star opponent, but not at the cost of team play. This ain't street ball.
The way the Lynx will win THIS YEAR is by distributing the basketball, getting balanced scoring, and complementing what SA will do most nights. The fact that Harding was able to grab 7 rebounds demonstrates that you don't have to score to contribute, especially at PG.
Pecking order:
Last night Zierden referred to Nicole Ohlde as the second best player on the club. Really? At the risk of making Marie's blood boil, here are Nicole's current stats:
21st in the league in rebounding
22nd in scoring
48th in field goal percentage
30th in blocks
25th in points/rebounds/assists average
45th in efficiency
1st in Fouls
Are those the stats of a second best player on any club? Not for a upper echelon team.
Ohlde got herself in foul trouble last night, and again showed her inability to finish in the paint, as well as contributing six turnovers. I'll be fair; she's played better lately, which certainly has contributed to the team's success. She's improved in almost every statistical category her last five games. And, being the primary front court player on the team this year, it's welcome and needed progress. But you can't have that much gap between your first and second best players. It's putting too much pressure on Nicole to be in that role, especially when they can't compliment her with stronger front court players. I'm guessing what they really want is for Harding to be second in the order, but given her performance to date, it's probably a year away. Thus the continued contribution of Svet and others to provide some help or simply hope for the continued improvement in Nicole's play will be paramount.
Bench play:
Last night, Eshaya Murphy came off the bench to provide a spark, with 12 points. Bench scoring has been an issue; they need to find that 6th or 7th player to come in and be the microwave or defensive stoppers.
Intangibles:
Essentially, the Lynx have improved offensively, and while still struggling defensively, have begun to balance it out. The last five games they have improved their shooting percentage, free throw percentage and assists per game; they have averaged scoring two points more than the opposition per game, up from a deficit of 4.47 per game for the season. Overall, the team has dipped in it's team rebounding totals, so the front court issues continue. The strategy seems to be increase the number of shots, rebound as a team (three players had 7 last night), share the ball and find the balance, all the while putting the ball in SA's hands at crunch time.
The bottom line: As the Beatles once said: "It's getting better." Parity in the league has actually provided a ray of hope, playoff-wise; they are 3 games out of the last spot in the Western Conference. To even mention that a couple of weeks ago would have been heresy on my part. Unfortunately, the rotten start has them pushing a huge rock up the hill. But the progress will encourage me to plunk my dollars down to go to a game, or to watch the games when they're available, which I certainly would encourage everyone to do.
And, considering the continuing drama on the Wolves side of the court, this blip in productivity has been welcome indeed. You can only call Kevin McHale an idiot for so long.
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
The Chronicles of Garnett
I've been listening to all the opinions regarding KG getting dealt. Chad Hartman is leaning toward the Boston deal, Dan Barreiro is not. Britt Robson was on MPR earlier this morning discussing the prospects; I find it very hilarious, since about two years ago he was boinking people off his blog if the subject was discussed. For someone as passionate of a KG backer as Britt is, I found his analysis to be rather objective. Good for him.
Then there are the boards, and the rumors; the people with "sources" who claim this or that person is in the know. I really do love this time of year, even though the facts are much of the speculation rarely turns into reality, especially in this town, with the front office we have. Not that anyone is particularly interested, here's my take:
Hartman's take was that probably this is the last decent shot at getting some value for KG, and that the 5th pick and Jefferson, in addition to our 7th, would represent a good start at rebuilding. He also mentioned that the Wolves would still need to enter the lottery a number of additional times to truly rebuild the team. That's where the rub is. We still owe two future number one's. It's going to be harder and harder to hold on to those draft choices, unless Boston gives us back the pick we gave up in that awful trade, or we can obtain another pick from somewhere else to compensate for the pick we will eventually gives the Clippers. This is how screwed up the Iron Ranger has made the organization. It is truly the rock and the hard place. Our ability to acquire talent through 2010 via draft is greatly compromised because of McHale's previous personnel moves. So, if we take that swing now and trade KG to the Celts, we'd better hit a home run with the 5th and 7th. I'm also not a huge Jefferson fan.
A trade for Phoenix talent would make more sense to me, but the fact is this whole situation is going to be very difficult. At this juncture, I would focus on keeping KG, let McHale limp off back to North Oaks, and go all out to find the best talent possible with a different VP (Hoiberg?). After his contract ends, we can offer him half of what he's making right now, and can get us by at least of the half of the draft IOU's we are committed to. Yeah, the chances are that we wouldn't get any value for him at age 33 or 34, because he would at that age simply cherry pick his way onto a contending team. But the facts are we can't even start over like other teams can, because we owe draft choices.
The saga continues...
Then there are the boards, and the rumors; the people with "sources" who claim this or that person is in the know. I really do love this time of year, even though the facts are much of the speculation rarely turns into reality, especially in this town, with the front office we have. Not that anyone is particularly interested, here's my take:
Hartman's take was that probably this is the last decent shot at getting some value for KG, and that the 5th pick and Jefferson, in addition to our 7th, would represent a good start at rebuilding. He also mentioned that the Wolves would still need to enter the lottery a number of additional times to truly rebuild the team. That's where the rub is. We still owe two future number one's. It's going to be harder and harder to hold on to those draft choices, unless Boston gives us back the pick we gave up in that awful trade, or we can obtain another pick from somewhere else to compensate for the pick we will eventually gives the Clippers. This is how screwed up the Iron Ranger has made the organization. It is truly the rock and the hard place. Our ability to acquire talent through 2010 via draft is greatly compromised because of McHale's previous personnel moves. So, if we take that swing now and trade KG to the Celts, we'd better hit a home run with the 5th and 7th. I'm also not a huge Jefferson fan.
A trade for Phoenix talent would make more sense to me, but the fact is this whole situation is going to be very difficult. At this juncture, I would focus on keeping KG, let McHale limp off back to North Oaks, and go all out to find the best talent possible with a different VP (Hoiberg?). After his contract ends, we can offer him half of what he's making right now, and can get us by at least of the half of the draft IOU's we are committed to. Yeah, the chances are that we wouldn't get any value for him at age 33 or 34, because he would at that age simply cherry pick his way onto a contending team. But the facts are we can't even start over like other teams can, because we owe draft choices.
The saga continues...
Sunday, June 17, 2007
A Season Hangs on the Balance
What are we to make of this little streak? I have my tickets and a small party scheduled for the Houston game, where we were planning to cheer the ladies on to mediocrity. (Got to create drama where you can find it) Is the patience that has been asked for by the team during the abysmal start finally starting to pay off? Are we seeing signs of a balanced, savvy squad, sharing the ball and not assuming SA is simply going to go off for 25-30 a night? Is Lindsey Harding maturing? Has Nicole Ohlde started bulking up? Are they playing better defense?
So many questions, so few answers.
I think it's safe to say that the Lynx are starting to play to their potential, which is a middle of the road team. The Sparks--even after a three game win streak--are not the same team without Lisa Leslie and/or Chamique Holdsclaw. Plus, they were on the second night of a back to back. We played them tough with Holdsclaw last week at their house; without Holdsclaw and energy, it should have been a home game win...and the Lynx came through with their second win in a row. However, I wouldn't bet the farm just yet that we're over the hump. You're not going to be an upper echelon team with players playing out of position--Kristen Mann at PF, for example. But Mann is a feisty lass, and proved it again last night.
The success of this team will be finding a consistent balance and developing trust within the core rotation. You can see it in the stats last night:22 assists vs. 11 for the Sparks. A number of players had good shooting nights last night, and to be fair, the Sparks defense wasn't great. But what I've seen over the last few games bodes well for the rest of the season. To compensate for this team's obvious weaknesses, playing as a unit, sharing the ball, and hitting shots when your star player decides to distribute the ball is paramount, because that's where the open looks and easy shots will be. Making the defense pay in overplaying the star is always a sweet and satisfying result of team play.
Augustus had five assists, second to Abrosimova's six. Harding had only three assists last night, but played under control, had no turnovers, and was 3 of 5 from the floor. A major key to this squad's continued development will be the emergence of another player OTHER than Harding or Ohlde. My choice would be Svet, but Kristen Mann's performance was, as mentioned, was excellent as well. Svet's all around game helps absorb some of the inconsistencies of the younger members of the team. She passes well, often rebounds better than Ohlde, and knows team defense.
After reading a few reactions to my comments about Harding's play in recent weeks, I am of two major opinions on the subject. First, when you have the number 1 selection overall, AND trade an accomplished front court player to obtain the pick, expectations are significantly for the individual. There's just no getting around that reality. Having said that, point guard is the most complicated position to play in hoops. On the men's side, Deron Williams (number 5 overall in the 2005 NBA draft) took his lumps for the Jazz in 05-06, and this year blossomed. But in a smart move, last off-season the Jazz added Derek Fisher to help stabilize that position. By contrast, what have our Lynx done? They gave the keys to Harding, threw her out in the middle of one of our many lakes, and essentially told her: see if you can swim to shore. Not only did they give up a front court player to get her, but they didn't acquire the equivalent of a Teresa Edwards (player, not coach) or allow Amber Jacobs any time to help stabilize the position.
Why?
The gamble must have been is that they felt Lindsey would have a short learning curve (being the number one, and coming from Duke), so the team wouldn't need a veteran to come in. A few games to get wet, and she'd be effortlessly butterflying her way to success, especially given the scoring dynamo next to her in Augustus. If this was indeed the case, I don't think it's panned out quite like what they thought. As a result, I think it's more than fair to criticize Harding when she plays poorly, but with the reality that the Lynx haven't exactly set her up for success. It may turn out well over a couple of seasons, but given this team is struggling in attendance every time a Minnesota alumni is NOT playing against them, and is only now starting to at least show a pulse, a short-term strategy not to kill the buzz would have been welcomed.
Being that their options are few, emphasizing a balanced approach is a sound strategy. Last night key stats--points in the paint, assists, and turnovers all went Minnesota's way. Overall rebounding went to the Sparks, but we led in defensive rebounding, which meant we were better --still not great--in limiting the Sparks to one shot. When you shoot as bad as the Sparks did last night, the potential for obtaining more offensive rebounds is greater. That the Sparks only led in this category by three means they gave up the ship early; by the second half, they were done.
The bottom line is that we are at least beginning to take advantage of favorable situations. What it doesn't mean is that we're truly on a roll...at least just yet. The Lynx are too young, too thin at key positions, and too inconsistent to make a run here. Just as the Chicago home and home series were early indicators of how awful the team was earlier, now we'll see if we can take success on the road against a decent San Antonio team, then back home against a Seattle team that cleaned our clocks last weekend. If they can win either of those two games, it might represent an actual growth spurt for this green squad. There's a lot of parity in the league right now, and at the end of next week a 4-10 or 5-9 record--considering their awful start--would be a major accomplishment for this group.
So many questions, so few answers.
I think it's safe to say that the Lynx are starting to play to their potential, which is a middle of the road team. The Sparks--even after a three game win streak--are not the same team without Lisa Leslie and/or Chamique Holdsclaw. Plus, they were on the second night of a back to back. We played them tough with Holdsclaw last week at their house; without Holdsclaw and energy, it should have been a home game win...and the Lynx came through with their second win in a row. However, I wouldn't bet the farm just yet that we're over the hump. You're not going to be an upper echelon team with players playing out of position--Kristen Mann at PF, for example. But Mann is a feisty lass, and proved it again last night.
The success of this team will be finding a consistent balance and developing trust within the core rotation. You can see it in the stats last night:22 assists vs. 11 for the Sparks. A number of players had good shooting nights last night, and to be fair, the Sparks defense wasn't great. But what I've seen over the last few games bodes well for the rest of the season. To compensate for this team's obvious weaknesses, playing as a unit, sharing the ball, and hitting shots when your star player decides to distribute the ball is paramount, because that's where the open looks and easy shots will be. Making the defense pay in overplaying the star is always a sweet and satisfying result of team play.
Augustus had five assists, second to Abrosimova's six. Harding had only three assists last night, but played under control, had no turnovers, and was 3 of 5 from the floor. A major key to this squad's continued development will be the emergence of another player OTHER than Harding or Ohlde. My choice would be Svet, but Kristen Mann's performance was, as mentioned, was excellent as well. Svet's all around game helps absorb some of the inconsistencies of the younger members of the team. She passes well, often rebounds better than Ohlde, and knows team defense.
After reading a few reactions to my comments about Harding's play in recent weeks, I am of two major opinions on the subject. First, when you have the number 1 selection overall, AND trade an accomplished front court player to obtain the pick, expectations are significantly for the individual. There's just no getting around that reality. Having said that, point guard is the most complicated position to play in hoops. On the men's side, Deron Williams (number 5 overall in the 2005 NBA draft) took his lumps for the Jazz in 05-06, and this year blossomed. But in a smart move, last off-season the Jazz added Derek Fisher to help stabilize that position. By contrast, what have our Lynx done? They gave the keys to Harding, threw her out in the middle of one of our many lakes, and essentially told her: see if you can swim to shore. Not only did they give up a front court player to get her, but they didn't acquire the equivalent of a Teresa Edwards (player, not coach) or allow Amber Jacobs any time to help stabilize the position.
Why?
The gamble must have been is that they felt Lindsey would have a short learning curve (being the number one, and coming from Duke), so the team wouldn't need a veteran to come in. A few games to get wet, and she'd be effortlessly butterflying her way to success, especially given the scoring dynamo next to her in Augustus. If this was indeed the case, I don't think it's panned out quite like what they thought. As a result, I think it's more than fair to criticize Harding when she plays poorly, but with the reality that the Lynx haven't exactly set her up for success. It may turn out well over a couple of seasons, but given this team is struggling in attendance every time a Minnesota alumni is NOT playing against them, and is only now starting to at least show a pulse, a short-term strategy not to kill the buzz would have been welcomed.
Being that their options are few, emphasizing a balanced approach is a sound strategy. Last night key stats--points in the paint, assists, and turnovers all went Minnesota's way. Overall rebounding went to the Sparks, but we led in defensive rebounding, which meant we were better --still not great--in limiting the Sparks to one shot. When you shoot as bad as the Sparks did last night, the potential for obtaining more offensive rebounds is greater. That the Sparks only led in this category by three means they gave up the ship early; by the second half, they were done.
The bottom line is that we are at least beginning to take advantage of favorable situations. What it doesn't mean is that we're truly on a roll...at least just yet. The Lynx are too young, too thin at key positions, and too inconsistent to make a run here. Just as the Chicago home and home series were early indicators of how awful the team was earlier, now we'll see if we can take success on the road against a decent San Antonio team, then back home against a Seattle team that cleaned our clocks last weekend. If they can win either of those two games, it might represent an actual growth spurt for this green squad. There's a lot of parity in the league right now, and at the end of next week a 4-10 or 5-9 record--considering their awful start--would be a major accomplishment for this group.
Thursday, June 14, 2007
Sun Spotted and Trader Kevin
Let's talk about the ladies first. A nice win, though the shooting was poor throughout for both clubs. Free throws are what won it for the team, which is another good sign: the ability to get into the paint and draw fouls. Nicole Ohlde went 7-14 with 8 rebounds, a welcome sign. Both Lindsey's shot poorly last night, with 4 for 14 nights. To be fair, Ms. Whalen is having a tough overall shooting year as well, with a 35.1% average, similar to Harding's 31.1%. Being the provincial homers Minnesotans often are, I'm guessing most fans here would be defending Whalen; instead we can criticize Harding's struggles. Suffice it to say that one reason both teams are struggling at this point (no pun intended), is that both PG's are not playing up to snuff. Of course, the expectations are much higher in CT than Minny, but along with a strong front court, a championship team needs decent production at the 1. Connecticut has already been at the doorstep, while Minnesota has barely touched the first round. Judging by last night's performance, both teams have a long way to go, with the Lynx second to last in the pack. The July 8th game against Houston is looming large as the two worst clubs in the league will compete to see which one is the more truly inept.
Speaking of inept, Kevin McHale made a trade today, giving up point guard bust Mike James and raw Justin Reed for the aging, slightly over the hill Juwan Howard. This is a decent trade if Howard has anything left to give. He can come in and score in the front court when KG sits, he can also be a decent tandem with KG late in the game. The speculation is that the Wolves now will draft a swing man, but this would be a mistake. Our club still has no front court shot blocking save KG; I've read all the rips against Noah on other boards, but he would be the best player available for this club, considering all the club's needs. The addition of Noah would give them 6 bigs on the squad (if you count Smith a big), and allow them to interchange more effectively, considering that Mark Blount is a one dimensional player, and can't do anything but shoot and occasionally show on defense. Swing men are a dime a dozen in this league; we have the opportunity to fortify our front court. Let's hope the Iron Ranger doesn't screw this one up.
Speaking of inept, Kevin McHale made a trade today, giving up point guard bust Mike James and raw Justin Reed for the aging, slightly over the hill Juwan Howard. This is a decent trade if Howard has anything left to give. He can come in and score in the front court when KG sits, he can also be a decent tandem with KG late in the game. The speculation is that the Wolves now will draft a swing man, but this would be a mistake. Our club still has no front court shot blocking save KG; I've read all the rips against Noah on other boards, but he would be the best player available for this club, considering all the club's needs. The addition of Noah would give them 6 bigs on the squad (if you count Smith a big), and allow them to interchange more effectively, considering that Mark Blount is a one dimensional player, and can't do anything but shoot and occasionally show on defense. Swing men are a dime a dozen in this league; we have the opportunity to fortify our front court. Let's hope the Iron Ranger doesn't screw this one up.
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
Oblivion's Edge
Is it any wonder why the television audience for the NBA Finals is shrinking? Between Tony Soprano and ugly basketball, people have better things to do than to watch games like Sunday and last night. I'm pretty old school about basketball, I could do without the loudmouth PA announcers, pyrotechnics, and endless hype regarding the game; just give me some good, tough, well played basketball, where some of the greatest athletes of the world actually rise to the occasion. This hasn't been one of those series. It's been all noise, flash and spin...and bad basketball.
James has been ordinary, and the supporting cast have played like boneheads, especially Drew Gooden and Anderson Varejao. Gooden had at least two silly fouls last night, fouling out when they needed him the most, while Varejao's idiotic desperate flip at the end of the game last night sunk the Cavs. Given the status of the Eastern Conference, and the youth of their core, the Cavs chances to come back in the next few years are substantial. Everyone--including Mike Brown, the Cavs OJT (on the job training) coach--should be able to learn from their mistakes. Get the brooms out--this year the Cavs are facing oblivion.
James has been ordinary, and the supporting cast have played like boneheads, especially Drew Gooden and Anderson Varejao. Gooden had at least two silly fouls last night, fouling out when they needed him the most, while Varejao's idiotic desperate flip at the end of the game last night sunk the Cavs. Given the status of the Eastern Conference, and the youth of their core, the Cavs chances to come back in the next few years are substantial. Everyone--including Mike Brown, the Cavs OJT (on the job training) coach--should be able to learn from their mistakes. Get the brooms out--this year the Cavs are facing oblivion.
Saturday, June 9, 2007
The Defense Rests
Last week, the magic number was 27.5%. That was our shooting percentage again NY. This weekend, it's 62.3% and 52.2, the game shooting percentages of the LA Sparks and Seattle Storm against our hapless Lynx ladies. Just as a low shooting percentage won't win you many games, neither will allowing a high shooting percentage. That the Lynx kept it close in LA and was in it to the end was the stuff of moral victories, but with the Seattle loss, it's just another indication of how far this club has to go before it can reach mere competence.
Let's start with the positives though; on offense, they are shooting and sharing better. I can only believe this is because of the insertion of Abrosimova and Raymond--when healthy--into the rotation. (Raymond was a DNP last night; I don't have any information on her status.) Though those two are huge disappointments in terms of being impact players, they play the game the right way, having come from a great UConn program. The increases are also a result of the team simply knowing each other better.
Consistent mid to high 40 percent shooting might get the job done--if your defense is sound. Here's where the rub is. To put it bluntly--we're terrible. The Lynx are the worst in the league in FG percentage allowed (49%), and second in points per game allowed (82.6 ppg).
The negatives continue to be overwhelming. Two key players on offense, Harding and Ohlde, are shooting in the mid 30's, percentage wise. That ranks them 53rd and 54th in the league in shooting percentage. Nicole is shooting 33% so far for the year. For a post player, this is terrible. By comparison Christi Thomas--the Sparks center--is shooting 62.5% for the season. A small sampling of other front court players in the WNBA, as of Saturday, June 9th:
Tangela Smith/Phoenix -.425
Jessica Davenport/New York -.476
Margo Dydek/Connecticut - .450
Cheryl Ford/Detroit -.550
Swin Cash/Detroit - .563
Chasity Melvin/Chicago -.346
Michelle Snow/Houston -.594
Lauren Jackson/Seattle - .441
Janell Burse/Seattle - .474
The front office apparently made the determination before the season started that Ohlde would be THE front court go-to player, and team up with Augustus and Harding to be the "Big Three" on the squad. In the last few years they allowed Janell Burse and Adrian Williams to move to other teams. To date, this has proven to be a major front office error, especially with Burse, who has improved in Seattle.
Ohlde is second in scoring with 13.2 a game and third on the team in shots and minutes played with 112 and 260, respectively, as of 6/9, before the Seattle game. She's 54th in FG percentage, 24th in the league in rebounding and 51st in efficiency, for essentially the third wheel and primary front court player for the Lynx. The simple fact is that if a post player plays that many minutes and shoots that much the production and efficiency has to be better. She's been a career low to mid 40's percentage shooter, so I assume the thought is she'll get better as the team develops, but we've seen the same inconsistency and lack of development for three years. Much like the Wolves with Mark Blount, there seems to be a high level of cluelessness about the quality of bigs on Glen Taylor run basketball operations.
I'm not picking on Olhde personally. This is more about personnel management--what pieces a team needs to build a winner. Harding has also been very inconsistent. That she's a rookie and comes from a great basketball pedigree gives her some cover for now, but SA was beginning to rip up the league at this time in her rookie season. Last night Harding was 1 for 8 with only 3 assists in 26 minutes of play. As much as a winning team needs an effective front court, the point guard position is also key. Again, similar to the men's team, we invest heavily in a point guard who so far hasn't cut it. The difference between Mike James and Lindsey Harding is obviously Harding still has tremendous potential, while James is who he is.
The bottom line is here that objectively speaking, one would think a team with two overall league number one's and three team first round picks in their starting rotation would have more than one win, despite their youth. With one of the league's top scorers, you would think that one way to help a younger team build confidence is to focus on defense, developing the potential for easy baskets and transition scoring, especially from Augustus. She didn't have it going last night, which gave the Lynx no shot in the game whatsoever, especially after the 2nd and 3rd quarters. Playing consistent quality team defense is more a matter of effort than talent. That the Lynx coaching staff is not able to coax any swagger out of this team--given the college programs they've come from--speaks louder than anything I could write or say.
Let's start with the positives though; on offense, they are shooting and sharing better. I can only believe this is because of the insertion of Abrosimova and Raymond--when healthy--into the rotation. (Raymond was a DNP last night; I don't have any information on her status.) Though those two are huge disappointments in terms of being impact players, they play the game the right way, having come from a great UConn program. The increases are also a result of the team simply knowing each other better.
Consistent mid to high 40 percent shooting might get the job done--if your defense is sound. Here's where the rub is. To put it bluntly--we're terrible. The Lynx are the worst in the league in FG percentage allowed (49%), and second in points per game allowed (82.6 ppg).
The negatives continue to be overwhelming. Two key players on offense, Harding and Ohlde, are shooting in the mid 30's, percentage wise. That ranks them 53rd and 54th in the league in shooting percentage. Nicole is shooting 33% so far for the year. For a post player, this is terrible. By comparison Christi Thomas--the Sparks center--is shooting 62.5% for the season. A small sampling of other front court players in the WNBA, as of Saturday, June 9th:
Tangela Smith/Phoenix -.425
Jessica Davenport/New York -.476
Margo Dydek/Connecticut - .450
Cheryl Ford/Detroit -.550
Swin Cash/Detroit - .563
Chasity Melvin/Chicago -.346
Michelle Snow/Houston -.594
Lauren Jackson/Seattle - .441
Janell Burse/Seattle - .474
The front office apparently made the determination before the season started that Ohlde would be THE front court go-to player, and team up with Augustus and Harding to be the "Big Three" on the squad. In the last few years they allowed Janell Burse and Adrian Williams to move to other teams. To date, this has proven to be a major front office error, especially with Burse, who has improved in Seattle.
Ohlde is second in scoring with 13.2 a game and third on the team in shots and minutes played with 112 and 260, respectively, as of 6/9, before the Seattle game. She's 54th in FG percentage, 24th in the league in rebounding and 51st in efficiency, for essentially the third wheel and primary front court player for the Lynx. The simple fact is that if a post player plays that many minutes and shoots that much the production and efficiency has to be better. She's been a career low to mid 40's percentage shooter, so I assume the thought is she'll get better as the team develops, but we've seen the same inconsistency and lack of development for three years. Much like the Wolves with Mark Blount, there seems to be a high level of cluelessness about the quality of bigs on Glen Taylor run basketball operations.
I'm not picking on Olhde personally. This is more about personnel management--what pieces a team needs to build a winner. Harding has also been very inconsistent. That she's a rookie and comes from a great basketball pedigree gives her some cover for now, but SA was beginning to rip up the league at this time in her rookie season. Last night Harding was 1 for 8 with only 3 assists in 26 minutes of play. As much as a winning team needs an effective front court, the point guard position is also key. Again, similar to the men's team, we invest heavily in a point guard who so far hasn't cut it. The difference between Mike James and Lindsey Harding is obviously Harding still has tremendous potential, while James is who he is.
The bottom line is here that objectively speaking, one would think a team with two overall league number one's and three team first round picks in their starting rotation would have more than one win, despite their youth. With one of the league's top scorers, you would think that one way to help a younger team build confidence is to focus on defense, developing the potential for easy baskets and transition scoring, especially from Augustus. She didn't have it going last night, which gave the Lynx no shot in the game whatsoever, especially after the 2nd and 3rd quarters. Playing consistent quality team defense is more a matter of effort than talent. That the Lynx coaching staff is not able to coax any swagger out of this team--given the college programs they've come from--speaks louder than anything I could write or say.
Thursday, June 7, 2007
Spurs bludgeon their way to title
Are the Spurs a dirty team? Yes. Are they a great organization? Yes. Can these two values co-exist? Yes. This will be an interesting series for awhile, but I'm picking the Spurs to win, in four or five games.
I've been pretty mediocre in my NBA predictions this year; I'm a much better after the fact second guesser, like most fans. But given the mythic rise of King James this year a couple of issues will be particularly fascinating to watch:
Fouling. Last year, the complaint from the Mavs was that all you had to do was breathe on D-Wade, and he would go to the stripe. Given the "star" factor, how much punishment will the refs allow Lebron to take? You know Bowen and/or Horry will trip, whip or knee James at some time during the series. Given the controversies in these playoffs, it will be up to the refs to establish their boundaries quickly in the first game.
Supporting cast. Can Daniel Gibson lead the supporting cast again for the Cavs? While Billups tried to muscle him down low, Tony Parker will try to draw fouls by using his quickness to penetrate and score. If Gibson, or Hughes can't slow Parker down, or keep from fouling him, Parker will have a field day getting to the line, or finishing. There may be a lot of bench grabbing for those two, thus potentially negating Gibson's contribution on offense.
Defense vs. Defense. As has been pointed out in other blogs, the Cavs play very good "D", but are pretty combustible emotionally, while the Spurs seemingly are able to keep their cool in most situations. Even when they lost it (re:Horry) they benefited from the situation. Drew Gooden is making the transition from bonehead to solid player, but would be my pick as "the player most likely to get technicals" in this series. Can the Cavs keep their defensive focus?
I think the conventional wisdom is pretty true in the case: Lebron is going to have to be special, and even more consistent than he was against the Pistons. The Pistons were ready to be beaten, it turns out, and James--with ample help from Gibson and others--rose to the occasion. I think the Spurs can kick it into gears the Cavs don't have, especially when the going gets tough.
Just watch out for those knees, trips and shoves, especially off the ball and away from the action. Somebody might get hurt, or suspended.
I've been pretty mediocre in my NBA predictions this year; I'm a much better after the fact second guesser, like most fans. But given the mythic rise of King James this year a couple of issues will be particularly fascinating to watch:
Fouling. Last year, the complaint from the Mavs was that all you had to do was breathe on D-Wade, and he would go to the stripe. Given the "star" factor, how much punishment will the refs allow Lebron to take? You know Bowen and/or Horry will trip, whip or knee James at some time during the series. Given the controversies in these playoffs, it will be up to the refs to establish their boundaries quickly in the first game.
Supporting cast. Can Daniel Gibson lead the supporting cast again for the Cavs? While Billups tried to muscle him down low, Tony Parker will try to draw fouls by using his quickness to penetrate and score. If Gibson, or Hughes can't slow Parker down, or keep from fouling him, Parker will have a field day getting to the line, or finishing. There may be a lot of bench grabbing for those two, thus potentially negating Gibson's contribution on offense.
Defense vs. Defense. As has been pointed out in other blogs, the Cavs play very good "D", but are pretty combustible emotionally, while the Spurs seemingly are able to keep their cool in most situations. Even when they lost it (re:Horry) they benefited from the situation. Drew Gooden is making the transition from bonehead to solid player, but would be my pick as "the player most likely to get technicals" in this series. Can the Cavs keep their defensive focus?
I think the conventional wisdom is pretty true in the case: Lebron is going to have to be special, and even more consistent than he was against the Pistons. The Pistons were ready to be beaten, it turns out, and James--with ample help from Gibson and others--rose to the occasion. I think the Spurs can kick it into gears the Cavs don't have, especially when the going gets tough.
Just watch out for those knees, trips and shoves, especially off the ball and away from the action. Somebody might get hurt, or suspended.
Wednesday, June 6, 2007
Lynx Win! Lynx Win! Lynx Win!
Finally, something to cheer about. A win, on national television to boot...well, kind of. The Women's CWS softball game on ESPN2 cut into the first half rather significantly, so I missed some of Nicole Ohlde's re-emergence as a post player, and the ample early scoring by the rest of the team. How did the scoring drought end?
1. The ball movement was better, and the team shared the rock. I saw semblances of a real offense, where the ball actually moved from side to side, and from low post back to high post for open looks. For the night the ladies had only 12 assists, but I could see some real effort to properly space the floor and make each other better, which led to...
2. Better shot selection. It seemed as if the shots were more in rhythm, especially Harding's. She would come off a screen, and knock down the 18 foot shot. The Mercury's coach, Paul Westhead, was heard telling the defender to get under the screen. Shades of Terrell Brandon! I guess that's why he's considered an offensive, not defensive, genius. Going under the pick usually gives the shooter all the spacing he/she needs, and last night Harding took advantage of that. As I mentioned Ohlde actually made some shots close to the basket, but by the second half when the game tightened considerably, she was back to getting her shot blocked in the paint. Ripping her ability to finish has been a constant in this blog, but she needs to keep the ball higher above her torso and use her height to better advantage when moving toward the basket. She gets the ball stripped and her shot blocked way too easy down low. She has decent quickness to the hoop, and it's been extremely frustrating to see her make a pretty move only to see the finish rejected, bricked, or stripped. Last night was hopeful.
3. Phoenix's defense. Have to give credit where credit's due, unfortunately. It's pretty clear that the Mercury's defense was horrible, and that they took the Lynx for granted until it was too late. Most of the teams the Lynx have played came out with a lot of energy, and right away began attacking SA with double teams. Having not seen much of the first half, it's hard to say what happened, but until Phoenix made their run, their energy was pretty low. We might have simply snuck up on them.
Still, a great win for the ladies. Kind of throws out the whole "first win pool". Leave it up to the Minnesota teams to ruin another great marketing idea. But now that the first one is taken care of, it will be interesting to see how they follow up. Hope, anyone?
1. The ball movement was better, and the team shared the rock. I saw semblances of a real offense, where the ball actually moved from side to side, and from low post back to high post for open looks. For the night the ladies had only 12 assists, but I could see some real effort to properly space the floor and make each other better, which led to...
2. Better shot selection. It seemed as if the shots were more in rhythm, especially Harding's. She would come off a screen, and knock down the 18 foot shot. The Mercury's coach, Paul Westhead, was heard telling the defender to get under the screen. Shades of Terrell Brandon! I guess that's why he's considered an offensive, not defensive, genius. Going under the pick usually gives the shooter all the spacing he/she needs, and last night Harding took advantage of that. As I mentioned Ohlde actually made some shots close to the basket, but by the second half when the game tightened considerably, she was back to getting her shot blocked in the paint. Ripping her ability to finish has been a constant in this blog, but she needs to keep the ball higher above her torso and use her height to better advantage when moving toward the basket. She gets the ball stripped and her shot blocked way too easy down low. She has decent quickness to the hoop, and it's been extremely frustrating to see her make a pretty move only to see the finish rejected, bricked, or stripped. Last night was hopeful.
3. Phoenix's defense. Have to give credit where credit's due, unfortunately. It's pretty clear that the Mercury's defense was horrible, and that they took the Lynx for granted until it was too late. Most of the teams the Lynx have played came out with a lot of energy, and right away began attacking SA with double teams. Having not seen much of the first half, it's hard to say what happened, but until Phoenix made their run, their energy was pretty low. We might have simply snuck up on them.
Still, a great win for the ladies. Kind of throws out the whole "first win pool". Leave it up to the Minnesota teams to ruin another great marketing idea. But now that the first one is taken care of, it will be interesting to see how they follow up. Hope, anyone?
Sunday, June 3, 2007
Exercises in Futility
I watched most of the game today on NBA TV, and it was awful. The team didn't score it's first field goal until there was 2:35 left in the first quarter. In the first half, they shot 21 percent. They ramped it up the second half, finishing at 31.5 percent. I'm not sure this can be said any other way: Coach Zierden is incompetent.
Why are the Lynx shooting such a poor percentage? Once again, they have to work very hard to create shots; there's no sense of sharing the ball whatsoever. Whether or not that indicates youth or poor chemistry, this team doesn't pass the rock. In the first half, they had only two assists. Two. They did better in the second half, with a total of nine, but it's clear they have no strategy other than to isolate or attempt to free up Augustus via screens and let her go to work. All the Sky did was trap and double team her to get the ball out of her hands, and they were sunk. Their other strategy is trying to use Harding's speed in the transition game, before the defense sets. The issue with that is of course, is that while the Lynx actually out rebounded Chicago, the Sky dominated the offensive rebounding stats, especially in the first half. You can't start a break if you don't have the ball. There are no easy baskets whatsoever in this offense.
Right now, Harding seems way over matched in trying to run what semblance of offense there actually is. I'll give her credit; she's taking her lumps like a true professional, but I don't understand the force feeding. It's not like she's the female second coming of Stephon Marbury, or Chris Paul. How exactly is she being setup for success?
At the risk of being extremely repetitive, the primary problem is in the front court. Ms. Ohlde's stats are deceiving; she is absolutely the worst low post presence--male or female--I've ever seen. The Sky let her off the hook by continually fouling her, and in the second half she was able to finally convert from the field, but as I've mentioned before, she needs to play the high post. She simply has no feel, touch or strength around the basket. It's embarrassing to watch her flail at the basket from 3 feet away in traffic. At least she hits her free throws. We've seen this now for three years running. McCarville is taking up space on the Liberty bench. We can't make some sort of trade for her or another who can play effectively with their back to the basket?
The Taylor group is missing a great marketing opportunity with this poor start. They should create a pool for fans to try and pick the first win for this club. At this point, have a sense of humor about
it, for Jim Pete's sake. You have to give the fans some fun in the middle of all this mess.
Why are the Lynx shooting such a poor percentage? Once again, they have to work very hard to create shots; there's no sense of sharing the ball whatsoever. Whether or not that indicates youth or poor chemistry, this team doesn't pass the rock. In the first half, they had only two assists. Two. They did better in the second half, with a total of nine, but it's clear they have no strategy other than to isolate or attempt to free up Augustus via screens and let her go to work. All the Sky did was trap and double team her to get the ball out of her hands, and they were sunk. Their other strategy is trying to use Harding's speed in the transition game, before the defense sets. The issue with that is of course, is that while the Lynx actually out rebounded Chicago, the Sky dominated the offensive rebounding stats, especially in the first half. You can't start a break if you don't have the ball. There are no easy baskets whatsoever in this offense.
Right now, Harding seems way over matched in trying to run what semblance of offense there actually is. I'll give her credit; she's taking her lumps like a true professional, but I don't understand the force feeding. It's not like she's the female second coming of Stephon Marbury, or Chris Paul. How exactly is she being setup for success?
At the risk of being extremely repetitive, the primary problem is in the front court. Ms. Ohlde's stats are deceiving; she is absolutely the worst low post presence--male or female--I've ever seen. The Sky let her off the hook by continually fouling her, and in the second half she was able to finally convert from the field, but as I've mentioned before, she needs to play the high post. She simply has no feel, touch or strength around the basket. It's embarrassing to watch her flail at the basket from 3 feet away in traffic. At least she hits her free throws. We've seen this now for three years running. McCarville is taking up space on the Liberty bench. We can't make some sort of trade for her or another who can play effectively with their back to the basket?
The Taylor group is missing a great marketing opportunity with this poor start. They should create a pool for fans to try and pick the first win for this club. At this point, have a sense of humor about
it, for Jim Pete's sake. You have to give the fans some fun in the middle of all this mess.
"A Man's Got to Know His Limitations"
I've often used the famous line from "Dirty Harry" to describe Flip Saunders. I've also often described Flip as a younger version of Don Nelson--offensive mastermind, regular season wonder, but not NBA championship caliber. The bottom line: he's a very good, but not great coach. We saw that again last night, and actually for the last two years. The pattern continues; impressive regular season performances, but el-foldo in crunch time.
After hearing all of his excuses why he couldn't push the Wolves past the first round more often (lack of talent, poor seeding, etc.), he had two potential job options when the Wolves bounced him: the Bucks and Pistons. If you've convinced yourself talent was the issue, then the choice was simple, wait for the Pistons job to free up, then take it. The problem with that logic is the reality that with great talent comes great responsibility. The bar is much higher, and you're not going to be able to BS your way past a basketball community with a tradition of excellence like the Pistons. It's win or go home, which in this case means win or get fired. That's exactly where Flip is today, with many people in the Detroit community calling for his head. Joe Dumars is not Kevin McHale, and the Pistons aren't the T-Wolves. Based on his past activity, I have to believe Flip is history.
Saunders should have taken the Gophers job, an opportunity where he all he had to do is occasionally make a NCAA tourney, sprinkle in the NIT in rebuilding years, and the job could have been his for as long as he wanted it. Now with Tubby Smith at the helm, if Flip does indeed get released soon, it's broadcasting, a year off, or possibly the Sacramento job. Who knows, if he waits long enough maybe Taylor would finally feel comfortable letting the Iron Ranger go if he knew Flip would come back to be VP/GM.
Dumars has other challenges as well, and it could mean opportunities for the Wolves. The immediate buzz right now out of Detroit is that Billups should be resigned, and that the Pistons should make a play for Zach Randolph. I can't see why he would make a deal for Mini-Sheed. Yeah, he's a Michigan State alumni, but I don't think he plays the Pistons way: tough physical defense combined with clutch offense. With five straight Eastern Conference appearances and only one ring to show for it with this group, I would think it's rebuilding time.
If I were the Iron Ranger, I would see if a combination of our seventh pick and players could possibly motivate a sign and trade for Mr. Big Shot. I think that certainly would fire KG up. The reality is that if Dumars wanted to rebuild, he has much better options than to deal with us, but you never know until you ask...
After hearing all of his excuses why he couldn't push the Wolves past the first round more often (lack of talent, poor seeding, etc.), he had two potential job options when the Wolves bounced him: the Bucks and Pistons. If you've convinced yourself talent was the issue, then the choice was simple, wait for the Pistons job to free up, then take it. The problem with that logic is the reality that with great talent comes great responsibility. The bar is much higher, and you're not going to be able to BS your way past a basketball community with a tradition of excellence like the Pistons. It's win or go home, which in this case means win or get fired. That's exactly where Flip is today, with many people in the Detroit community calling for his head. Joe Dumars is not Kevin McHale, and the Pistons aren't the T-Wolves. Based on his past activity, I have to believe Flip is history.
Saunders should have taken the Gophers job, an opportunity where he all he had to do is occasionally make a NCAA tourney, sprinkle in the NIT in rebuilding years, and the job could have been his for as long as he wanted it. Now with Tubby Smith at the helm, if Flip does indeed get released soon, it's broadcasting, a year off, or possibly the Sacramento job. Who knows, if he waits long enough maybe Taylor would finally feel comfortable letting the Iron Ranger go if he knew Flip would come back to be VP/GM.
Dumars has other challenges as well, and it could mean opportunities for the Wolves. The immediate buzz right now out of Detroit is that Billups should be resigned, and that the Pistons should make a play for Zach Randolph. I can't see why he would make a deal for Mini-Sheed. Yeah, he's a Michigan State alumni, but I don't think he plays the Pistons way: tough physical defense combined with clutch offense. With five straight Eastern Conference appearances and only one ring to show for it with this group, I would think it's rebuilding time.
If I were the Iron Ranger, I would see if a combination of our seventh pick and players could possibly motivate a sign and trade for Mr. Big Shot. I think that certainly would fire KG up. The reality is that if Dumars wanted to rebuild, he has much better options than to deal with us, but you never know until you ask...
Saturday, June 2, 2007
Numbers that Don't Belong
27.4 % was roughly my first interest rate I received from a borrower when I was first trying to establish credit as a young man. It's also close to how full my hard drive is. What it should NOT be is the final shooting percentage for a professional basketball team on any given night. Then again, maybe we're not talking about a professional basketball team. Right now, the jury is still out. There's not much use in trying to look for patterns, suggesting starting line-ups, or search for moral victories. If your team shooting percentage is that low for the game, you're generally gonna lose.
Despite quickly denied rumors of the franchise being shopped to a Denver group, that scenario does help to explain a few things. The hiring of an inexperienced coach (albeit a long time Taylor club member), the sudden change in strategy at draft time from a low post acquisition to nationally known college star, the lack of any other front court acquisitions to help the team in a crucial area. If what you wanted to do was bottom out this market, eliminate fan support and create a justification for leaving, well, that's exactly what's happening. I don't know if the Taylor group could break even in selling the franchise given the money they've lost over the years, but certainly a bad franchise with a couple of clearly recognizable names (Augustus, Harding) would certainly be an easy sell in other markets with the will to develop enthusiasm for the women's game. It has that capitalistic logic to it.
I certainly hope that's not the case; but it's hard to explain this level of incompetence, especially at 27.4 %.
Despite quickly denied rumors of the franchise being shopped to a Denver group, that scenario does help to explain a few things. The hiring of an inexperienced coach (albeit a long time Taylor club member), the sudden change in strategy at draft time from a low post acquisition to nationally known college star, the lack of any other front court acquisitions to help the team in a crucial area. If what you wanted to do was bottom out this market, eliminate fan support and create a justification for leaving, well, that's exactly what's happening. I don't know if the Taylor group could break even in selling the franchise given the money they've lost over the years, but certainly a bad franchise with a couple of clearly recognizable names (Augustus, Harding) would certainly be an easy sell in other markets with the will to develop enthusiasm for the women's game. It has that capitalistic logic to it.
I certainly hope that's not the case; but it's hard to explain this level of incompetence, especially at 27.4 %.
Friday, June 1, 2007
Emergence
I've always thought the NBA's marketing line "Will you be watching when", or whatever it is was very weak. Last night, it was spot on. King James was spectacular last night, scoring the last 25 points for his team. It's particularly interesting for Wolves fans, because it once again illuminates how a true superstar puts a team on his back in key situations and can lead the club to victory. The excuse here has always been we never could win a playoff series or get farther because we didn't have the talent, and that KG needed help. That's true over a season perhaps. But I don't think there's anyone who could say the Pistons aren't a deeper, more talented team than the Cavs. Yet Cleveland's star was better than anyone else on the court, and literally carried them to victory. KG fans, this is as clear of an example as it gets.
For two seasons in a row, we have seen the emergence of two young stars--D Wade and James. They have snatched victory from defeat. Wade had Shaq, but James is the only certifiable star on his team. The Cavs may not win this series--they're in the same position they were last year, when they lost--but there are moments where you see a player rise above everything, perform, and WIN a tough game. As great of a player as KG is, we've seen little of that from him, especially in playoff action. KG is closer to Pippen than to Jordan. Both fabulous players, but only one real superstar.
That is simply why players like Duncan will be ranked ahead of KG, and until KG can put together a performance like we saw last night, he will be paid well and highly considered, but never be mentioned in the same fashion and reverence that James was last night. Even more unfortunately, KG's time may be over to be able to prove he belongs in that category. With last night's performance, the bar is certainly higher.
For two seasons in a row, we have seen the emergence of two young stars--D Wade and James. They have snatched victory from defeat. Wade had Shaq, but James is the only certifiable star on his team. The Cavs may not win this series--they're in the same position they were last year, when they lost--but there are moments where you see a player rise above everything, perform, and WIN a tough game. As great of a player as KG is, we've seen little of that from him, especially in playoff action. KG is closer to Pippen than to Jordan. Both fabulous players, but only one real superstar.
That is simply why players like Duncan will be ranked ahead of KG, and until KG can put together a performance like we saw last night, he will be paid well and highly considered, but never be mentioned in the same fashion and reverence that James was last night. Even more unfortunately, KG's time may be over to be able to prove he belongs in that category. With last night's performance, the bar is certainly higher.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
